New filing in the Perry case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Class Plaintiffs want the three-judge panel in D.C. to modify its ruling in Perry v. Mnuchin to make it clear that “[t]he relevant expectations for the breach of implied covenant claims are the expectations of the shareholders who purchased preferred or common shares in the Enterprises when those shares were issued, not the subsequent expectations of shareholders who purchased shares in the secondary market.” A copy of the Class Plaintiffs’ rehearing petition is (linked above).
That fallacious attempt to discriminate among GSE shareholders based on the dates they purchased their shares is also buried in our government’s supplemental motion to dismiss posted at http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0161.pdf delivered to Judge Sweeney on June 8, 2015. Briefing on that narrow topic was stayed in accordance with Judge Sweeney’s order posted at http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0240.pdf entered on Sept. 9, 2015.”

New filing in the Sammons v. US case (W.D. of Texas), click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Mr. Sammons is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to review Judge Biery’s order dismissing his lawsuit, and a copy of his opening brief is (linked above).”

New filing in the Collins case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Treasury filed an Advisory last night telling Judge Atlas that it no longer supports FHFA’s position that the agency is constitutionally structured.”

New filing in the Perry case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Institutional Plaintiffs delivered their petition this afternoon asking the three-judge panel in the D.C. Circuit to rehear their appeal. The request is narrow, asking the judges to modify their ruling to make it clear that they did not abandon their common law claims. While Judges Millet and Ginsburg indicated in their majority opinion that Fairholme and other Institutional Plaintiffs had abandoned their common law claims, Hamish Hume, the lead lawyer representing the Class Plaintiffs, makes clear in a declaration attached to today’s petition that is not the case; rather, Mr. Hume explains, the Class and Institutional Plaintiffs acted in concert but attempted to spare the Court from redundant briefing.”

New filing in the Fairholme case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The government needs ten additional days to reply to Fairholme’s request for a $211,000 check to reimburse 86% of the fees it incurred to prosecute its motion to compel. Fairholme’s agreed to extend the deadline to Apr. 6.”

New filing in the Saxton case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Judge Reade heard 2-1/2 hours of oral argument this morning on FHFA and Treasury’s motions to dismiss the Saxton Plaintiffs’ lawsuit challenging the Net Worth Sweep. Judge Reade has taken the matter under advisement and will issue her decision in the coming weeks or months. A copy of the Hearing Minutes documents is (linked above). A transcript should be prepared in the coming days.”

New filing in the Jacobs and Hindes case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Judge Sleet placed his stamp of approval this morning on the parties’ agreement to complete briefing on renewed motions to dismiss by July 17.”

New filings in the Saxton case.Renewed Motion to DismissOrderPlaintiffs’ Response to FHFA
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA and Treasury alerted Judge Reade yesterday to Judge Chang’s decision dismissing the Roberts Plaintiffs’ complaint in Chicago. FHFA and Treasury want Judge Reade to follow Judge Chang’s lead. In a response delivered to Judge Reade today, the Saxton Plaintiffs tell her that Judge Chang’s is nothing more than one more case wrongly decided and directs Judge Reade’s attention back to Judge Brown’s dissent in Perry v. Mnuchin.
Judge Ready also entered an order today advising the parties that tomorrow’s hearing on FHFA and Treasury’s motions to dismiss will be held in Courtroom 2 in Cedar Rapids.”

New filing in the Fairholme case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Mr. Sammons returned today to tug on Judge Sweeney’s robe with a request for permission to file an amicus brief to press his argument that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims lacks juristiction to consider GSE shareholders’ takings claims.”

New filings in the Roberts case.Memorandum Opinion and OrderJudgment in a Civil Case
Peter Chapman writes, “Judge Chang entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order and a Judgment this afternoon dismissing the Roberts Plaintiffs’ lawsuit in Chicago with prejudice and granting FHFA and Treasury’s motions to dismiss the Roberts Plaintiffs’ amended complaint.”

New filing in the Fairholme case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Fairholme delivered a response to Judge Sweeney this afternoon arguing that she should order the government to pay 86% of the fees Fairholme incurred to obtain access to 86% of the sample documents that were improperly withheld. Fairholme’s lawyers at Cooper & Kirk billd $245,000 for their work related to the motion to compel; Fairholme says the government should cut a check for $211,000.”

New filing in the Collins case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Collins Plaintiffs filed their consolidated brief this afternoon arguing again to Judge Atlas in Texas that FHFA is unconstitutionally organized and that should cause the Net Worth Sweep to tumble.”

New filing in the Saxton case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Saxton Plaintiffs tell Judge Reade that FHFA conveniently overlooks Judge Brown’s dissent in the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Perry v. Mnuchin that reach the same conclusion and embrace the Saxton Plaintiffs’ arguments to the Iowa court. “The fact that Judge Brown was outvoted does not mean that she was wrong,” the Saxton Plaintiffs tell Judge Reade.”

New filing in the PHH v. CFBP case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “In an amicus filing in PHH v. CFBP, No. 15-1177 (D.C. Cir.), today, a copy of which is (linked above), the Department of Justice doesn’t support the way the CFBP is structured. By implication, the Department of Justice would not support the way FHFA is structured. Our government’s arguments today in PHH v. CFPB do not square with our government’s arguments on a Reply filed on Feb. 27, 2017 — see http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Collins/16-cv-03113-0038.pdf — in Collins v. FHFA which challenges the constitutionality of the FHFA. Incredibly, Chad R. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, is the same lead lawyer in both cases!”

New filing in the Jacobs and Hindes case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Messrs. Jacobs and Hindes delivered their Amended Complaint to Judge Sleet this afternoon. The gravamen of this complaint, life the initial complaint, is that any preferred security claiming to be entitled to 100% of a corporation’s earnings is illegal and is void. The amended complaint abandons the breach of contract and duty claims and moves forward with an unjust enrichment argument.”

2nd filing in the Jacobs and Hindes case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The parties have asked Judge Sleet to place his stamp of approval on this agreed briefing schedule:
— FHFA, Fannie, Freddie and Treasury will file their motion to dismiss by Apr. 17, 2017;
— Messrs. Jacobs and Hindes will respond by June 16, 2017; and
— FHFA, Fannie, Freddie and Treasury will file their reply by July 17, 2017”

New filings in Sammons v. U.S. (W.D. Texas)
Peter Chapman writes, “Mr. Sammons had commenced a parallel proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Mr. Sammons attempted to circumvent the Tucker Act which shuffles many claims against our government to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims when the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000. Mr. Sammons’ litigation in the District Court did not fare well. The Honorable Fred Biery dismissed his complaint. Mr. Sammons has filed a notice of appeal in the District Court indicating that he intends to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to review Judge Biery’s decision.
Copies of the key documents are bundled into a zip file, are available at http://bankrupt.com/misc/Sammons-v-US.zip and don’t appear to offer anything we haven’t already read.”

New notation in the Fairholme case (Sammons Appeal).
Peter Chapman writes, “The Clerk for the Federal Circuit made a notation (Doc. 27) on the docket sheet in Mr. Sammons’ appeal indicating that the matter was submitted on the parties’ written briefs to to Judges Louri, O’Malley and Taranto today.”

New filing in the Deloitte case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “In the Reply (linked above), the Edwards Plaintiffs make an aggressive argument to Judge Scola that he goofed in his substitution ruling. The Edwards Plaintiffs direct Judge Scola’s attention to the recent ruling in Perry v. Mnuchin for the proposition that HERA did not allow FHFA to scoop up shareholders’ direct claims. The Edwards Plaintiffs encourage Judge Scola to revisit, reconsider, and redraft his myopic Feb. 10, 2017, order.”

New filing in the Roberts case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “According to the Minute Entry (linked above), Judge Chang doesn’t want to meet with the parties this month. Instead, he wants them to gather in his courtroom on Tues., Apr. 4, 2017.”

New filing in the Pagliara v. Fannie Mae case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Judge Sleet entered an order today remanding Mr. Pagliara’s books and records request to the Delaware Chancery Court. Judge Sleet rejected FHFA’s contention that HERA’s succession provision alters or prempts the normal procedure for a shareholder to inspect a Delaware corporation’s books and records, and was persuaded by the D.C. Circuit’s recent Perry decision that shareholders’ direct claims against the GSEs weren’t wiped away by HERA.”

2nd filing in the Pagliara v. Fannie Mae case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “(Linked above) is a copy of the Clerk’s letter advising the Delaware Chancery Court that Judge Sleet is sending Mr. Pagliara’s lawsuit back for further proceedings in state court.”

New filing in the Fairholme case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Judge Sweeney entered an Order today:
(A) directing the government, by Apr. 17, 2017, to review the 11,000 documents withheld from Fairholme in light of the rulings on Fairholme’s motion to compel, turnover all non-privileged documents to Fairholme, and file a status report confirming those actions;
(B) adopting the 345-day briefing schedule proposed by the parties; and
(C) requesting additional filings about whether the government should be required to pay Fairholme’s costs for bringing its motion to compel.”

New filing in the Collins case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “The Collins Plaintiffs want to file one consolidated brief on Mar. 20 in support of their motion for summary judgment asking Judge Atlas to rule that FHFA is unconstitutional, and opposing FHFA’s cross-motion for summary judgment asking Judge Atlas to rule that the agency is constitutionally organized. The parties tell Judge Atlas they all think this one-week delay and paper conservation effort is good and ask her to bless the arrangement.”

New filing in the Roberts case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA delivered a copy of the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Perry v. Mnuchin to Judge Chang yesterday to let him know the appellate tribunal ruled that sec. 4617(f) of HERA bars shareholders’ claims that FHFA and Treasury exceeded their statutory authority.”

New filing in the Saxton case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA delivered copies of two documents to Judge Reade yesterday:
(A) the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Perry v. Mnuchin to let her know the appellate tribunal ruled that sec. 4617(f) of HERA bars shareholders’ claims that the agency and Treasury exceeded their statutory authority; and
(B) the Saxton Plaintiffs’ response filed in the MDL proceeding in Apr. 2016 stating they had abandoned their common law claims.”

New filing in the Pagliara v. Fannie Mae case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “Mr. Pagliara’s layers sent Judge Sleet a letter this evening alerting him to the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in Perry v. Mnuchin, and directing his attention to some sentences in that ruling that indicate Mr. Pagliara’s books and records request should be litigated in the Delaware Chancery Court.”

U.S. Treasury FSOC Council Meeting March 2 – treasury.gov
“the Council discussed the ongoing annual reevaluation of its designation of a nonbank financial company, including the review of materials submitted by the company and engagement with the company”
GSE Links note: The nonbank financial company is not named. We can only speculate who it might be.

New filing in the Deloitte case, click here to view.
Peter Chapman writes, “FHFA filed its opposition to the Edwards Plaintiffs’ request that Judge Scola change his substitution ruling. FHFA tells Judge Scola that he should deny the request.”